AFF's Doublethink

Mikeybackwards — October 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm

It would also keep law abiding citizens who are improperly accused of crimes they did not commit in hazard of being murder by vigilantes. But I guess if the alleged crime is abhorrent enough, you are willing to at least consider voiding civil rights of innocents in the hope you might catch a few guilty individuals.

Broken eggs . . . omelettes. . . and all that, right?

Mikeybackwards — October 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm

On a less snarky note – this approach fails to consider an essential factor in crimes in general and crimes of this nature in specific. To wit: criminals rarely consider the potential consequences of getting caught, in large part because the persuade themselves that they will not get caught before committing their crimes. This is even more true when confronted by individuals who commit sex crimes against children who often not only disregard the possibility of getting caught, but are able to persuade themselves that their victims ‘wanted it’ or ’seduced’ the perpetrator or some such other shite.

None of the above is to suggest that we shouldn’t punish these despicable people (Roman Polanski included) harshly. However, we should be careful not to sacrifice our own humanity and commitment to civilized standards when confronted by evil individuals who would attack or assail society in such a way.

Mikeybackwards — October 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm

edit note: third line above should read –

. . . in large part because the criminals persuade . . .

Would it be too much to ask for a preview option so one could catch these typos before posting?

Ridwell — October 14, 2009 at 12:10 am

Sonny,

Why would someone care? How about the rule of law, public order above all personal vendetta, all of that, Batman?

I applaud your right to cheer when vigilantes avenge the crimes of degenerate rapist-murderer-arsonist; but it is not right, nor advantageous for our society or its laws to officially tolerate such behavior in any way (e.g. in any case when ever most of us can so easily for feel compassion or empathy for the victims or victims’ families).

Most crimes have victims, and its always possible to sympathize with the common urge and temptation to rectify any and all wrongs inflicted on you or your family – correctly, precisely, and efficiently; personally.

Rape is bad. But, when we make our ability to “get,” or “care” where particular avengers “are coming from” the mechanism by which violent crime is excused, where do you draw the line at cheering on or looking the other way.
If your on a jury, would it just take the right lawyer who can persuade you that many criminals’ victim “had it coming.” Of course, that matters to us as human beings, but as citizens, we should care enough to insist that even the justified criminal is prevented or punished.

So I care, to the extent I care about the law of the land being as sovereign, consistent, and meaningful as possible.

Sonny Bunch — October 14, 2009 at 7:35 am

Let’s leave aside the practical concerns of turning law enforcement over to vigilantes — I don’t think WWTDD’s proscription that killing an innocent is still illegal would be enough to ensure it didn’t happen — and instead focus on those situations like Polanski’s. What I’m saying is this: In a situation where you have someone who is undeniably guilty of a horrific crime and gets away scot free, would you really care if a family member of the victim wreaked vengeance upon him? I mean “care” in the “I’m very, very upset by this” sense, not the logical “Well, that probably adds to the degradation of the rule of law” sense. I’m looking at this from an emotional/ justice-based perspective, not necessarily a legal one. I just have a hard time believing that your first thought at seeing the newsflash over CNN would be “That’s just wrong.” I’m guessing — if you’re being honest — that your first reaction would be “Well, he had that coming.”

Mikeybackwards — October 14, 2009 at 7:58 am

Well lets look at Polanski’s case – he did not get off Scot free (which is btw as an interesting ethnic slur if I ever heard one). He had a plea agreement that he would be sentenced to time served. When the judge colluded with the prosecutor to abrogate that agreement he fled that broken agreement. Keep in mind that this is what the prosecutor and others from the judicial and prosecutorial agencies have said, not just Polanski’s apologists. However, even in that case, I think Ridwell posits the more conservative and more correct moral position, and this leaves aside the situation where the victim has said enough is enough, that continuing this case is actually causing her more harm.

While one might derive some satisfaction from such illegal and/or immoral act as vigilante justice, it ultimately leads to societal break down as the degree of remove from the victim where such acts might be seen as acceptable to where anyone who believes a connection exists, no matter how remote, that s/he is entitled to take justice into his/her own hands instead of letting the law take its course.

Crime and punishment are not blood sports where we should cheer when the ‘good guys’ or at least ‘our side’ wins, nor should we encourage such base impulses in others. That way leads anarchy and the murder, mutilation, and violation of innocents, the very thing that you would seek to punish in this manner.

Mikeybackwards — October 14, 2009 at 8:09 am

A further point regarding Polanski, specifically, one may think he should not have received the deal that he pleaded to, but it was the deal he and his lawyers negotiated. Also, given that one of the goals of any sentence is that the perpetrator not commit his or her crime again, and no evidence suggests Polanski has done so, doesn’t that speak to the effectiveness of the prosecution of him?

Also regarding punishment in general. We do not permit mutilation, capital punishment, or violence as punishment by the state – why then would we permit it on behalf of some interested party – for example your hypothetical family member?

All vigilantism does is create an additional criminal who must be punished.

Ridwell — October 14, 2009 at 8:16 am

Okay, true – upon seeing the flash on CNN, first I feel a wave of visceral pleasure, then, depending on how the reported details relate the savory snap of perfect justice, I usually experience a sort of enthusiastic rush of satisfaction. Probably why I and so many love the sparse and straightforward citizen-Bronson revenge movie format – instinct.

But after this initial elation, eventually my more steady, less emphatic but just as passionate love of Law and order reins me back in from the urge to join the heroic vigilante on a crusade against the truly guilty, and moves me to stand against even this clear rightness and my own natural approval and enjoyment of its perfect justice, in the name of the Law – not out of logic, but love. This is just basic civility, love of country.

Sonny Bunch — October 14, 2009 at 10:05 am

All of these are fair points (with the exception of the prosecutorial misconduct charge, which a.) may not have even happened, and b.) almost certainly wouldn’t have been enough to get the trial thrown out, and c.) doesn’t change the fact that judges aren’t required to hand down whatever sentence the prosecutor and the defense works out). I still think I’d have a hard time “caring” about violators getting their comeuppance.

Ridwell — October 14, 2009 at 10:36 am

I get it Sonny. You have a tough time caring only because you are such an empathetic person. You can forgive or overlook that which you can relate to as decent and human.
I do too, but I also empathize with everyone who restrains their own urge to enforce justice out of an acceptance of the legally due punishment for the crime personally delivered comeuppance as the bedrock of civilized society.
(Deep down, on some level, in some way, you know you probably agree with this. Or you’d be in jail or dead by now.)

Americans seem to unanimously endorse the government’s official military role of defending and fighting foreign threats in our stead, wherever and whenever necessary. In light of this, it only seems rightfully courteous for the public to extend the same acceptance of governmental exclusivity to domestic policing.

Now if some privately trained militia wanted to channel some of this very natural, welled-up indignation and vigilantic energy shared by many righteous and manly men living in any stable, law-abiding society, by going to Asia to kill deserving folks in the taliban and alqaeda, who am I to speak out against them?
What real (i.e. American) laws would they be breaking, that is if they broke off all contact and stayed clear of U.S. troops? (I don’t know, some?) I would still feel that their actions are between them and the authorities of those lands.
I would be much more inclined to forgive their breach of authority or the law than Jamie Foxx’ even more commiserative patriarchal vengeance.
But, alas, no such militia of vigilante freedom fighters have yet formed. (What is wrong with this country?)

Still, I would feel less care about preventing such enterprising vigilantick spirit that would take its destabilizing tendencies on the road to fight the declared enemies of all of us than I resolutely feel about preventing any private civilian from satisfactorily correcting any horrific crime against himself, his friends, or family on his own terms, within my borders, under my laws.
This is our house, where each is supposed to be equal before the Law. Period. It is outrageous and unfair for one man to be free or to be praised for using his personal power to avenge his daughter, while the powerless and law-abiding are denied the same satisfaction or respect. Sublimate all family grudges, blood allegiances, and honorable retaliations to your owed loyalty to our country and its laws and you’ll get more sympathy from me, Jamie Foxx!

Sonny Bunch — October 14, 2009 at 10:45 am

That sounds like a pretty great movie to pitch, actually:

[Voiceover]Tired of spending his billions on mosquito nets for Africa, Bill Gates set his sights on a more formidable target: Osama Bin Laden.

Cue silent montage in which he shows up in an underground lair with a truck load of money, an arsenal of weapons, and five ass-kickers ready to take on the mountains of Pakistan.

[Chants] “USA! USA!”
[Fade to black]

Mikeybackwards — October 14, 2009 at 11:34 am

While I know you meant to be cute with your movie plotting, more than 1 million people die each year from Malaria. It is much more deadly an enemy of humanity than bin Laden or any other would be tin pot terrorist. I think Gates’ work in the Third World to alleviate disease, increase education, and improve standards of living will ultimately have a more salubrious effect in reducing the appeal of terrorism than letting Blackwater or its analogs run amok in Afghanistan where General McChrystal has pointed out that we need to engage in counter-insurgency, including the type of philanthropic activities Gates engages in, rather than counter-terrorism efforts that often ensnare and victimize the people we claim to be wanting to protect so the terrorists no longer have a safe haven.

Sonny Bunch — October 14, 2009 at 11:41 am

By “meant to be,” I’m sure you mean “succeeded in.” I’m amazingly cute.

And, fortunately, we actually have a very, very effective tool against malaria. Unfortunately, it’s DDT, and the environmentalists have waged war against it for no good reason for decades, consigning millions of (poor, black) people to death in the meantime.

Mikeybackwards — October 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Right, no good reason except that in enters the food chain and also kills such beneficial organisms as bees and other polinators, as well as resulting in poisonings and hazards for the health of millions. Ignoring of course that DDT is still being used in Africa in an effort to eradicate mosquitos that carry malaria to no effect.

But keep trying to re-write history to suit yourself.

Mikeybackwards — October 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm

BTW, I wanted to provide a link to the Malaria Foundation International page regarding this topic.